If you believe that the free market can do everything else why not trust it with defense and law?

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

At 1/27/2013 6:52:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:If you believe that the free market can do everything else why not trust it with defense and law?

Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and leadership, nor to law and laws " What anarchists oppose is that certain leaders should have a special privilege to use force, a privilege to coerce, to compel others to submit to their leadership, to use force in ways that would be impermissible for other people to use force. Anarchists favor there being more leaders, not no leaders " as many leaders as can find followers. Similarly, anarchists do not oppose law, but rather oppose the existence of any body of men with the power to make law by merely decreeing it to be law.

As for military/defence, we will have "a will regulated malitia" as opposed to a standing army -- kinda like Switzerland

The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

At 1/27/2013 6:39:50 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:I am becoming more undecided between the two. What are the pros and cons for Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarian Minarchism?

Libertarian minarchism is actually a semi-respectable position imo. You probably already know some of the basic pros: libertarianism = MOAR MONEY, obvious cut back of government excesses, more privacy, etc.

On Ancap, I think you and the rest of the AnCaps need to honestly consider the means through which AnCap would plausible arise. I don't know of any government in history that willingly stepped in support of any strand of anarchy... I guess that leaves violent uprising or coup d'etat? After the decentralization, how does one even insure the second half of the ideology gets tacked onto the "anarcho."

Choose for yourself, but in general when given a choice between an intellectually respectable (but still flawed, imo) and fairly mainline position that can be achieved through democratic processes and one that is revolutionary and extreme I tend to choose the former.

Minarchy tends to devolve into higher forms of statism owing to the institutional structure out of which it operates i.e., a STATE. AnCapitalism at least removes that negative structure all the way to let new ones evolve that may or may not entail devolution.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

Minarchy, through judicial power, is simpler, and probably more efficient at enforcing the law. There is only one unified code of law, so any of the legal issues could be resolved. I imagine that with anarchy, it would become out of hand.

Military defense is greater under a minarchist state, as one government can defend its nation -- though under any gov't the way of protecting the nation should be to have a strong national defense with a non interventionist foreign policy.

I don't think it's realistic to expect an anarchist society to defend against the Chinese military, or any other military of a similar size. Nuclear missiles, fighter jets, tanks, all of these military weapons would be in the hands of private companies. They could literally blow their competitors to pieces, ignore their legal company, etc.

Plus, states tend to form over time. People eventually form kinship groups, local chiefdoms, and small societies. Then, small societies consolidate their power by absorbing territory around them. This has happened nearly everywhere on mainland Earth (not islands in the Pacific though).

I think that a minarchist state, with the government protecting people's rights, running the legal system, and ensuring the national defense is protected, is the best option of the two choices.

Also the gold standard doesn't stop inflation.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

If you think jurisdictional decisionmaking (law) is a scarce commodity, and different judges without an overriding command structure that separates their subject-matter jurisdiction or harmonizes their decisionmaking in the same geographic location will inevitably conflict and lead to war, you are a minarchist. If you think people can reliably, and perpetually negotiate in a manner avoiding war or an agreed-upon hierarchy and separation of subject-matter jurisdiction with an agreed upon command structure, you are an ancap.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 1/28/2013 11:59:33 AM, Contra wrote:Minarchy, through judicial power, is simpler, and probably more efficient at enforcing the law. There is only one unified code of law, so any of the legal issues could be resolved. I imagine that with anarchy, it would become out of hand.

Then why not encode a universal legal system, binding on *all* countries? Because the problem you're describing should apply the same to countries with different legal customs as well.

Military defense is greater under a minarchist state, as one government can defend its nation -- though under any gov't the way of protecting the nation should be to have a strong national defense with a non interventionist foreign policy.

I don't think it's realistic to expect an anarchist society to defend against the Chinese military, or any other military of a similar size. Nuclear missiles, fighter jets, tanks, all of these military weapons would be in the hands of private companies. They could literally blow their competitors to pieces, ignore their legal company, etc.

National defense really isn't as big a problem as you're making it out to be. Not only could a coasian solution (http://en.wikipedia.org...) possibly work in a similar manner as modern State armies (think of it as a way for people to contract out public decisions without force), but lack of a coercive central military force doesn't necessitate that individual defense firms couldn't band together in the face of existential threat.

Plus, states tend to form over time. People eventually form kinship groups, local chiefdoms, and small societies. Then, small societies consolidate their power by absorbing territory around them. This has happened nearly everywhere on mainland Earth (not islands in the Pacific though).

So did slaving out prisoners, and later slaving out other races. We see this in most societies up until extremely recently (and still even in third world countries). But Westerners now generally abhor the practice even though it went on for most of history. This, imo, at least shows that trends aren't fixed. They don't change overnight of course, but they're not fixed.

I think that a minarchist state, with the government protecting people's rights, running the legal system, and ensuring the national defense is protected, is the best option of the two choices.

Also the gold standard doesn't stop inflation.

I agree, though neither does the Fed, plus there are terrible "people-centric" problems that come with central banking, i.e., problems related to how people seem to inevitably use it, even if it *could* do its job in theory. Central Banking offers to great a deal for politicians with big budgets that need paying. In politics, there are three ways to pay for something, tax, borrow, or print. The third option is basically a get out of jail free card for upping government expenditures.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 1/28/2013 11:59:33 AM, Contra wrote:Minarchy, through judicial power, is simpler, and probably more efficient at enforcing the law. There is only one unified code of law, so any of the legal issues could be resolved. I imagine that with anarchy, it would become out of hand.

Then why not encode a universal legal system, binding on *all* countries? Because the problem you're describing should apply the same to countries with different legal customs as well.

I believe in national sovereignty. Some nations should have different laws. Right wing minarchists would agree that the principle of national sovereignty is preferred over a global stateless society (left libertarian ideal).

Military defense is greater under a minarchist state, as one government can defend its nation -- though under any gov't the way of protecting the nation should be to have a strong national defense with a non interventionist foreign policy.

I don't think it's realistic to expect an anarchist society to defend against the Chinese military, or any other military of a similar size. Nuclear missiles, fighter jets, tanks, all of these military weapons would be in the hands of private companies. They could literally blow their competitors to pieces, ignore their legal company, etc.

National defense really isn't as big a problem as you're making it out to be. Not only could a coasian solution (http://en.wikipedia.org...) possibly work in a similar manner as modern State armies (think of it as a way for people to contract out public decisions without force), but lack of a coercive central military force doesn't necessitate that individual defense firms couldn't band together in the face of existential threat.

They could possibly plan out ways of executing a defense plan. I just don't think that it's plausible though that individual defense firms would band together to face the enemy. They could, and some probably would, but enough to overcome an enemy? I'm just skeptical.

Plus, states tend to form over time. People eventually form kinship groups, local chiefdoms, and small societies. Then, small societies consolidate their power by absorbing territory around them. This has happened nearly everywhere on mainland Earth (not islands in the Pacific though).

So did slaving out prisoners, and later slaving out other races. We see this in most societies up until extremely recently (and still even in third world countries). But Westerners now generally abhor the practice even though it went on for most of history. This, imo, at least shows that trends aren't fixed. They don't change overnight of course, but they're not fixed.

How would an anarchist society outlaw slavery and make sure people's rights are protected?

I think that a minarchist state, with the government protecting people's rights, running the legal system, and ensuring the national defense is protected, is the best option of the two choices.

Also the gold standard doesn't stop inflation.

I agree, though neither does the Fed, plus there are terrible "people-centric" problems that come with central banking, i.e., problems related to how people seem to inevitably use it, even if it *could* do its job in theory. Central Banking offers to great a deal for politicians with big budgets that need paying. In politics, there are three ways to pay for something, tax, borrow, or print. The third option is basically a get out of jail free card for upping government expenditures.

You are right. Wouldn't the idea of competing currencies lead to a massive slowdown in trade? Since there would be different ways of accepting money, I'd imagine that the economy would recede, as economic transactions would be complicated.

I like Milton Friedman's idea, where the Fed only prints a low amount of money each year, and that quantity of money printed each year doesn't change. And the Fed is audited.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

I'm theoretically anarchist because I believe it's possible. I'd accept Minarchism, certainly compared to what we have today. I guess I'd ask what prevents you from taking the last step.

Here's an idea I've been pondering: what would happen if we had a federal government, but all taxes and exchange were voluntary (that includes your choice of medium of exchange - aka money). Then we would know what peoples preference on this subject was. We'd also know if, and which, people want roads and space-ships to mars.

I'm convinced they key to life is non-aggression and voluntarism. Don't those two things make Ayn Rand's idea/debate over self-interest moot? Be self-interested if you want or join a group and call yourselves communist. I don't care.

I believe in national sovereignty. Some nations should have different laws. Right wing minarchists would agree that the principle of national sovereignty is preferred over a global stateless society (left libertarian ideal).

But that doesn't change what I said. Different countries having different laws lead to conflict as with different defense firms supporting different means of defense?

They could possibly plan out ways of executing a defense plan. I just don't think that it's plausible though that individual defense firms would band together to face the enemy. They could, and some probably would, but enough to overcome an enemy? I'm just skeptical.

You should be. We're talking about a fantasy hypothetical right now. But the same could be said of a loyalist in 1773 who "just doesn't think" people can rally around to elect their own leaders. Think all you want but there's not any a priori reason to think not.

How would an anarchist society outlaw slavery and make sure people's rights are protected?

We've talked about this before so I'm coming into this tentatively. Overlapping (jurisdiction-wise) judiciaries to arbitrate and resolve disputes and defense firms to protect person and property is the traditional AnCap model. Though no one should make claims to know exactly how people would respond to unique economic/social problems that may arise in the event that anarchism comes to fruition.

You are right. Wouldn't the idea of competing currencies lead to a massive slowdown in trade? Since there would be different ways of accepting money, I'd imagine that the economy would recede, as economic transactions would be complicated.

There are already different currencies floating around and trade does just fine. But what you're logically necessitating (unwittingly perhaps) is universal instead of national currency. Because everything you said applies as much to international as it does to intra-state trade.

I like Milton Friedman's idea, where the Fed only prints a low amount of money each year, and that quantity of money printed each year doesn't change. And the Fed is audited.

I'd like no one to murder, rape, or steal. But quite honestly that will never happen.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

I believe in national sovereignty. Some nations should have different laws. Right wing minarchists would agree that the principle of national sovereignty is preferred over a global stateless society (left libertarian ideal).

But that doesn't change what I said. Different countries having different laws lead to conflict as with different defense firms supporting different means of defense?

They could possibly plan out ways of executing a defense plan. I just don't think that it's plausible though that individual defense firms would band together to face the enemy. They could, and some probably would, but enough to overcome an enemy? I'm just skeptical.

You should be. We're talking about a fantasy hypothetical right now. But the same could be said of a loyalist in 1773 who "just doesn't think" people can rally around to elect their own leaders. Think all you want but there's not any a priori reason to think not.

How would an anarchist society outlaw slavery and make sure people's rights are protected?

We've talked about this before so I'm coming into this tentatively. Overlapping (jurisdiction-wise) judiciaries to arbitrate and resolve disputes and defense firms to protect person and property is the traditional AnCap model. Though no one should make claims to know exactly how people would respond to unique economic/social problems that may arise in the event that anarchism comes to fruition.

You are right. Wouldn't the idea of competing currencies lead to a massive slowdown in trade? Since there would be different ways of accepting money, I'd imagine that the economy would recede, as economic transactions would be complicated.

There are already different currencies floating around and trade does just fine. But what you're logically necessitating (unwittingly perhaps) is universal instead of national currency. Because everything you said applies as much to international as it does to intra-state trade.

I like Milton Friedman's idea, where the Fed only prints a low amount of money each year, and that quantity of money printed each year doesn't change. And the Fed is audited.

I'd like no one to murder, rape, or steal. But quite honestly that will never happen.

That's the very problem I have with anarchy. In the words of Ludwig von Mises,

"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."

I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.

I should note it also depends what you mean by "inflation."Advocates of the gold standard typically mean by inflation "The printing of new currency."

Of course prices can rise if gold supply stays fixed-- and production levels fall.

You won't get hyperinflation though without some very severe problems that would be there no matter what your monetary system.

You didn't tell me what you mean by gold standard though. Were the "dollar" certificates printed redeemable for a fixed amount of gold, or one that could be and was changed at government whim many times? (Hint: If it was the latter, we wouldn't need to call it a "dollar," we'd just refer to it by the amount of gold it was redeemable for. I'd love to go into a store and exchange a "half-gram note.")

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 1/28/2013 7:35:53 PM, ax123man wrote:I'm theoretically anarchist because I believe it's possible. I'd accept Minarchism, certainly compared to what we have today. I guess I'd ask what prevents you from taking the last step.

Here's an idea I've been pondering: what would happen if we had a federal government, but all taxes and exchange were voluntary

That's already assumed by minarchy. The only appropriate minarchist consequence to not paying your "taxes" (the word taxes is inappropriate for a voluntary fee) is denial of services.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 1/28/2013 7:35:53 PM, ax123man wrote:I'm theoretically anarchist because I believe it's possible. I'd accept Minarchism, certainly compared to what we have today. I guess I'd ask what prevents you from taking the last step.

Here's an idea I've been pondering: what would happen if we had a federal government, but all taxes and exchange were voluntary

That's already assumed by minarchy. The only appropriate minarchist consequence to not paying your "taxes" (the word taxes is inappropriate for a voluntary fee) is denial of services.

That makes sense but can you point me at some information? It could be that I've focused on work in line with Rothbard, who discuss minarchy in a way that makes it seem that taxes are not voluntary. If minarchists really see taxes as voluntary, that changes my view. However, I suspect that a monopoly of force will always end up being a problem. There's denial of service and then there's plain old harassment, such as the Aaron Swartz case (and many others)

I should note it also depends what you mean by "inflation."Advocates of the gold standard typically mean by inflation "The printing of new currency."

Of course prices can rise if gold supply stays fixed-- and production levels fall.

But this isn't bad is it? Shouldn't it always be our goal to allow the price system to work? In this case, prices rise and attract more production.

You won't get hyperinflation though without some very severe problems that would be there no matter what your monetary system.

Can there by hyperinflation on a gold standard? Has it ever happened? In the U.S. it's only happened twice, both times related to money printing. I'm not necessarily doubting you. I'd like to know.

You didn't tell me what you mean by gold standard though. Were the "dollar" certificates printed redeemable for a fixed amount of gold, or one that could be and was changed at government whim many times? (Hint: If it was the latter, we wouldn't need to call it a "dollar," we'd just refer to it by the amount of gold it was redeemable for. I'd love to go into a store and exchange a "half-gram note.")

I always thought the terms were gold standard and gold exchange standard, but yea, best clarify.

At 1/27/2013 6:52:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:If you believe that the free market can do everything else why not trust it with defense and law?

Governments are hired to provide for the common protection of life, liberty, and property. If individuals have the liberty to renounce citizenship and naturalize into a different country, than it is equivalent to the free market.

Anarchism does not necessarily lack a legislature, what they lack is an executive administration.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 1/27/2013 6:52:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:If you believe that the free market can do everything else why not trust it with defense and law?

Governments are hired to provide for the common protection of life, liberty, and property. If individuals have the liberty to renounce citizenship and naturalize into a different country, than it is equivalent to the free market.

Have you ever looked into what it takes to do this? I have and it's not good. It's very expensive, takes years. Meanwhile you can't open a bank account overseas. It's not feasible for most. You will likely be heavily taxed, will be told not to come back, and if your rich, will be denigrated by the media. The whole "if you don't like it, leave" line of reasoning doesn't hold water.

Now if states would grow some balls and work to become more sovereign, then yes, moving across state lines would address this issue.

At 1/29/2013 7:31:00 AM, ax123man wrote:That makes sense but can you point me at some information? It could be that I've focused on work in line with Rothbard, who discuss minarchy in a way that makes it seem that taxes are not voluntary.

I'm a minarchist. I get to define the rules for minarchy.

Another minarchist, Ayn Rand, also prohibited coercive forms of payment collection. One Rothbard was familiar with, so his discussion of minarchy, if it sounded complete, was dishonest.

But this isn't bad is it? Shouldn't it always be our goal to allow the price system to work?

Not so much our goal as our means, but yes, the sort of "inflation" that doesn't involve government printing is better left without intervention.

Can there by hyperinflation on a gold standard?

If you have a hyper-drop in production. E.g. nuclear holocaust. We were agreeing for all practical purposes if you didn't notice.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 1/29/2013 7:31:00 AM, ax123man wrote:That makes sense but can you point me at some information? It could be that I've focused on work in line with Rothbard, who discuss minarchy in a way that makes it seem that taxes are not voluntary.

I'm a minarchist. I get to define the rules for minarchy.

nice! I like it.

Another minarchist, Ayn Rand, also prohibited coercive forms of payment collection. One Rothbard was familiar with, so his discussion of minarchy, if it sounded complete, was dishonest.

But this isn't bad is it? Shouldn't it always be our goal to allow the price system to work?

Not so much our goal as our means, but yes, the sort of "inflation" that doesn't involve government printing is better left without intervention.

Can there by hyperinflation on a gold standard?

If you have a hyper-drop in production. E.g. nuclear holocaust. We were agreeing for all practical purposes if you didn't notice.

I'd like no one to murder, rape, or steal. But quite honestly that will never happen.

That's the very problem I have with anarchy. In the words of Ludwig von Mises,

"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."

We don't assume everyone will play nice, that's precisely a turn against statism (i.e., the belief that States will play nice).

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/27/2013 6:52:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:If you believe that the free market can do everything else why not trust it with defense and law?

Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and leadership, nor to law and laws " What anarchists oppose is that certain leaders should have a special privilege to use force, a privilege to coerce, to compel others to submit to their leadership, to use force in ways that would be impermissible for other people to use force. Anarchists favor there being more leaders, not no leaders " as many leaders as can find followers. Similarly, anarchists do not oppose law, but rather oppose the existence of any body of men with the power to make law by merely decreeing it to be law.

As for military/defence, we will have "a will regulated malitia" as opposed to a standing army -- kinda like Switzerland

The militia is organised by the state. You cannot have regulation without coercion. You cannot have coercion without a vehicle that is coercing. Thus you need a coercer to coerce others to regulate. Saying you can isn't fanciful thinking: it's a contradiction.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.